317 



adjoins those lands. In one of the early drafts of the EIS 

 the statement was made that the management of "prior * 

 existing rights such as mineral leases, rights of way, and 

 miniilg claims" might require "reasonable changes". That is 

 a clear acknowledgement that the private property interests 

 in such "prior existing rights" will be in5>acted by the ' 

 proj ects . , 



If, in fact, the project teams did not intend iirtpact on ' 

 private lands, why were private property conditions included 

 in the analysis of land conditions? Again, we were told in 

 one of the earliest drafts of the EIS that "Information 

 about conditions and uses on private lands in the basin was 

 included in the Scientific Assessment so that the EIS team 

 could fully understand the entire landscape and adequately 

 consider cumulative effects of the alternatives." Why wprry 

 with 'the condition of private property if the alternatives 

 will have no effect on such property? Why would one even 

 believe that there would be "cumulative effects" if private 

 property were not to be impacted? Suppose a private lanjd 

 owner has allowed his land to deteriorate while adjacent' 

 federally managed land is in good condition. Suppose , 

 professional management of a forest by a Forest Supervisor 

 has greatly in^jroved forest health, but adjacent private 

 forest lands are in poor condition. Is it not clear that it 

 distorts planning objectives for the federally managed land 

 if the scientific data for that portion of the ecosystem 

 includes data as to the poor private Icind? Logical euiswers 

 to these questions would make it clear that the EIS and the 

 ecosystem projects will iitpact private property. 



The Eastside document stated "Ecosystems do not stop at 

 political or land ownership boundaries, yet the goal of the 

 project is to improve the health of physical, biological, 

 social and economic cott^ionents of ecosystems through j 

 management of Forest Service and BLM- administered lands.' 

 The extent of lands not xinder the authority of these 

 agencies, and their role in ecosystem process and 

 fiinctioning is therefore a key consideration." If the 

 considerations as to the non-federal lands are considered 

 "key^, doesn't the EIS then present a fundamental planning 

 flaw if in fact private lands are not to be impacted? 



Water rights in Idaho are realty rights. They are privately 

 held. Yet, in Chapter 1 "Purpose and Need", the EIS draft 

 states that "It is the position of the United States that 

 the right to use water for management of the public lands 

 was reserved by the United States when the National Forests, 

 BLM Districts, Wildernesses, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and 

 National Recreation Areas were created." The EIS does not 

 bother to explain the opposing position, i.e., that the 

 ranchers who graze and who have held constitutionally prior 

 appropriation rights for over a century hold those water- 

 rights. The EIS concludes that the United States claims are 



